LB 3089 
.3 
.M4 S67 
1864 



#^- «*s.-;. 









I , k-^ "1. /=*^' 















s : -v^^^ 






/M. 



A STATEMENT OF FACTS 



CONCERlftNO THB 



EXPULSIOIT 



MR.W.T.SPILLER'S CHILDREN 



SROU THB 



BCHOOL^ OF WO 







WOBURN : 
B.T. UOODT, PRINTER, MIDDLKSBXi; JOURNAL OFFICB^ 
1864. 



*^^. \^^-u\^'^ 








Fellow Citizens of Woburn :— 

Knowing your willingness to correct all apparent devia- 
tions from justice on the part of your public officers, I beg 
to call your attention to a few facts in which I am particu- 
larly interested. 

My rights and privileges have been taken from me by your 
School Committee, consisting of the following members : — 
Rufus P. Stebbins, J. C. Bodweli and J. Spencer Kennard. 
By their instruction, my children, George and Mary, have 
been expelled from the Green Street School, taught by Miss 
Mary Dennett^for not complying with the practice of the 
school in repeating prayer with the teacher, and bowing 
their heads upon their desks while doing so. As many ru- 
mors and sayings are afloat concerning the matter, I take 
this method of making known the facts in as plain and sim- 
ple a way as the short space at my disposal will permit, and 
shall annex the opinion and decision of the School Coihmit- 
tce of the neighboring town of Winchester in a similar case, 
and let the people decide upon the action of the two Com- 
mittees. 

My children, — George, eight years old, and Mary, six, — 
attended the Spring and Summer Terms, and two weeks of 
the Fall Term, of 1863, when they received some punish- 
ment for not complying with some rule. ( On inquiry, of them 
I learnt for the iirst time the practice of the school, and algo 
learnt that they had not complied with it for the two other 
terms taught by Miss Dennett. I then told them that I did 
not wish them to repeat the prayer or bow their heads. 
Sending them to school for the purpose of being educated, 



not for worship, reserving the right of instructing them after 
my own convictions of right, I accordingly saw Miss Dennett 
on that eveningland very kindly requested her not to force 
the rule upon my children, feeling willing for herself and 
the other scholars to act as they saw fit. She replied, "that 
the rule must be obeyed." I then told her that I hoped she 
would respect my feelings in the case. 

On the next Monday morning, they came home between 
nine and ten o'clock, and said that the teacher told them to 
take their books and go home, and not come again until they 
could obey. I called upon her for a written statement of 
the reasons for their expulsion. She gave me the following 
note : — 

" This is to certify, that George and Ma^ry Spiller have 
been suspended from school after repeated refusals to obey 
the rule of the school, until they are willing to conform tp 
the regulation. Mary Dennett, 

Teacher of Green Street Primary. 

WOBURN, Sept. 28th, 1863." 

On Thursday noon, I called upon Mr. Kennard and de- 
manded the reasons for their expulsion. He» said that " he 
did not know of their being expelled, and if they were he 
could only suppose the reasons, and that the teacher made 
a complaint to them about the matter ; adding that they gave 
the teachers a general scope of action in regulating their 
respective schools ; but as it was the hour of the Committee 
meeting, he would lay the matter before them, and if I call- 
ed upon either one of the three on the next day, I could 
know the reasons, or receive an answer." I called upon Dr. 
Stebbins and received the following :— 

'' Mr. Spiller's children were forbidden to attend school, 
because they refused to obey their teacher, Miss Dennett. 

RuFus P. Stebbins^ 
WoftUUN, Oct, 2a, 1863." 



I said to him that I was not satisfied with the answer. 
He said that he knew no more ; that Miss Dennett had made 
a complaint of disobedience, and that he would ascertain the 
reasons and let me know at the earliest opportunity. I re- 
ceived on Monday morning the following note : — 

" Saturday noon. 
" Mr. Spiller, — Dear Sir — I learn, on inquiry of Miss Den- 
nett, that she has not required your scholars to repeat the 
Lord's Prayer, or be whipped. The rule of the school is,. 
* that every scholar recline the head upon the desk when the 
Lord's Prayer is repeated in concert with the teacher.' She 
has never taken pains to find out who does or does not re- 
peat it, nor inflicted any punishment for not doing it, even 
if she did observe delinquency. I hope this will satisfy you 
that no improper regulations are made or unwisely enforced.' 

Yours truly, 

Rupus P. Stebbins." 

In connection with this note let me state, that Miss Dennett 
said she did not ask my children in particular to conform to 
the rule ; (and also, that she opened her eyes and seeing that 
my children did not comply, stopped and sent them home, 
and as soon as they reached the entry proceeded with the 
prayer.j 

I called on Dr. Stebbins in the evening and said to him 
that I did not understand the note that I received from him 
by Miss Dennett He said, " that the children were mii^- 
taken as to the cause." I then asked him what they were 
expelled for, but he would say nothing more concerning the 
matter, I then demanded that they be admitted into school. 
He said, ^' if they would comply with the rule of the school 
they might go, otherwise they could not." 

On the 9th of October, I met Mr. Bodwell at the Main 
Street School-house, and told him that there must be some 
misunderstanding in the matter, He said that " the Com- 
mittee fully understood the case, and that he had taken pair- 



ticular pains to see Miss Dennett to know if I had been 
rightly informed of the reasons, and she said I had been/' 
He also said " that the Statutes permitted the rule, and not 
only permitted but demanded it, and they should sustain it 
at all hazards," and then rode off. 

On the 22d of October, I sent the Committee a copy of 
the following opinion of two eminent counsel, and notified 
them of my intention to place my children in school again* 
and hoped to hear of no further trouble concerning them. 

m1'% [opinion.] 

"Mr. Spiller's children were excluded from schooI,solely for 
the reason that, in obedience to their parents instructions* 
they refused to join in prayer, by bowing their heads, or re-" 
dining them on their desks, during prayers by the teacher. 
The laws of the Commonwealth require no such obedi- 
ence, and give no authority to the school committee to rC' 
quire it. If children in our public schools, can lawfully be 
required to join in prayer, by bowing their heads, they may 
lawfully be required to join in prayer, by standing up, raising 
their heads, closing their eyes, clasping their hands, bending 
their knees, repeating prayers audibly, responding amen,, 
praying to the Virgin Mary, making the sign of the cross, 
counting beads, and, in fact, by performing any manner of 
religious ceremony which the school committee may choose 
to prescribe. 

If the School Committee can require this, or any other re- 
ligious observance whatever, they can require what neither 
the legislature, nor any other power in this Commouwealthr 
can require, consistently with the Bill of Rights. The sec- 
ond article of the Bill of Rights declares that, — "No subject 
shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty or 
estate, for worshiping God in manner and season most agree- 
able to the dictates of his own conscience ; or for his relig- 



ious profession or sentiments, provided he doth not disturb 
the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious wor- 
ship." 

There is no pretence that Mr. Spiller's children disturbed 
the public peace, or obstructed the teacher, or the other schol- 
ars, in their religious worship, they simply refused to join i^ 
such worship, or in such religious observances, as were re- 
quired of them. 

It is one of the essentials of religious liberty, and a clear 
principle of the Bill of Rights of Massachusetts, that no per- 
son can be required, by law, to perform any religious obser- 
vance or ceremony whatever. All that can be required of 
any one is that he shall not disturb others in their religious 
worship. 

K any religious observance can be required of children in 
the public schools, it may be required of their fathers in 
town meetings, or as a condition of being allowed to travel 
the public highways. ' 

The very Committee who have usurped this authority over 
the children of Mr. Spiller, would doubtless die at the stake 
sooner than they would allow their own children to conform 
to any religious observances not in accordance with their 
own sentiments. 

Suppose the Catholics were to elect the School Commit- 
tee for the town of Woburn, and that that Committee should 
prescribe religious observances peculiar to the Catholic re- 
ligion — the members of the present Committee would then 
demand for their children, the very liberty they now deny to 
the children of Mr. Spiller. 

But the statutes of this Commonwealth expressly forbid 
the assumption of any such authority as the School Committee 
has assumed. Chapter 41, section 9, of the Revised Stat- 
utes, expressly declares that, — " No person shall be exclu- 
ded from a public school on account of the race, color, or 
religious opinions, of the applicant or scholar." 



a- 



This right of persons of all kinds of religious opinions to 
attend the public schools, implies that none of them are to 
be required to perform any religious ceremonj, or conform 
to any religious observances inconsistent with their respec- 
tive creeds or convictions. 

.; The third section of the same chapter also declares that, — 
" All children within the Commonwealth may attend the 
public schools in the place in which they have their legal 
residence, subject to the regulations prescribed by law^ — ^ot 
subject to regulations prescribed only by school Committees, 
but " subject (only) to regulations prescribed by law^ And 
the duties of School Committees are, not to prescribe regu- 
lations of their own, but only to see that the "regulations 
prescribed by law" are observed. 

The unreasonable and tyrannical conduct of the Commit- 
tee is seen in the fact that they have not only prescribed a 
regulation not prescribed by law, and not allowed to be 
prescribed even by the legislature itself, but they have pre- 
scribed for scholars in secular schools, a religious obser- 
Tance that is not required either by law, custom, or courtesy, 
even in religious assemblies ; for in our religious assemblies, 
attendants are allowed to stand, to kneel, to bow their heads, 
to close their eyes, &c., in prayer, or not to do any of these 
things, according as their own feelings may dictate. They 
are just as free not to do any of these things, as they are to do 
them ; and this is no doubt the custom in the very churches, 
in which these members of the School Committee respective- 
ly officiate as preachers. 

We of course concede the right of the School Committee 
to require obedience to all rules that are reasonably neces- 
sary to be observed in giving and receiving instruction in all 
branches of knowledge that are required by law to be taught 
in the public schools. But certainly religious observances 
have nothing to do with teaching or learning any of these 
branches of knowledge. Pravers have evidently nothing 



more to do with teaching or learning arithmetic, grammar, 
geography, &c., than have baptism and the Lord's Supper. 
And scholars in secular schools might as reasonably be re- 
quired to join in these latter observances as in prayers or 
any others. 

Prayers are not required by law in the public schools. 
They are introduced by teachers and committees solely of 
their own volition. They may reasonably be objected to 
like any other religious ceremonies, as occupying time that 
is designed by law to be devoted to other matters. To re- 
quire children to join in them is, therefore, a most manifest 
usurpation. Even if prayers were required by law to be 
made by the teachers, that would not justify the teachers or 
committee in requiring the children to join in the prayers by 
any outward sign; but only to observe quiet and order dur- 
ing prayers. No more than this could reasonably be requir- 
ed of children, because this is all that is required, even by 
custom or courtesy, in professedly religious assemblies. 

If it should be claimed that the teacher does not compel 
the children of Mr. Spiller to do anything more than recline 
the head, without otherwise joining in prayer, the obvious 
answer is two-fold, — first, that reclining the head is manifest- 
ly joining in the prayer, and can have no other significance ; 
and, secondly, that not reclining the head is not an act that 
can by possibility disturb others in their devotions, any 
more than not kneeling could be said to be such a disturb- 
ance. 

Some persons believe that all formal prayers are errone- 
ous, as implying that the Creator is either ignorant or re- 
gardless of His duties. Surely such persons may reason- 
ably and conscientiously refuse to join in such prayers under 
any circumstances. Other persons, who believe in prayer, 
may nevertheless reasonably and conscientiously refuse to 
join in such prayers as they are liable to hear in school or 
elsewhere, because the prayers of one person may express 



10 



sentiments wholly abhorrent to the religious feelings of ano- 
ther person. 

The tyranny of the School Committee is evident in ano- 
ther view. The Revised Statutes of this Commonwealth 
(Ch. 41, Sec, 1) make it an offence, punishable by a fine of 
twenty dollars, not to send a child to school. But if a man 
can neither keep his children at home without being fined, 
nor send them to school without having them compelled to 
join in obnoxious religious observances, a complete religious 
tyranny is established over him. 

We should hope that the matter might be adjusted be- 
tween Mr. Spiller and the Committee, without resort to liti- 
gation or a town discussion, by their yielding to him a mani- 
fest right, which he may reasonably hold inviolable. The 
Statutes of the Commonwealth are clearly against them. 
The Bill of Rights is clearly against them. Manifest justice 
is clearly against them. The plainest principles of religious 
freedom are against them. The verdict of a jury, if one 
should be taken and they should do their duty — will surely 
be against them. The judgment of all candid men will be 
against them. 

The interests of the schools and the quiet of the town 
require that the Committee recede from their usurpation, 
for dissenters from prevailing religious creeds are notori- 
ously a class of men not easily silenced ; and if Mr. Spiller 
is a true man, he will not be silenced until his rights are 
respected. The Committee can judge whether their cause 
has anything to gain by a controversy, either in law or 
among the inhabitants of the town. 

. Boston, Oct. 22d, 1863." 



On Monday morning I went with my children to the school 
and told the teacher that I had notified the Committee of 
my intention to place them in school, and hoped she would 



11 

allow the matter to rest, and let them do their work, for I 
wished to have no controversy with her. She retained them 
as visitors on that day, and then told them not to come again ; 
but they went again on Wednesday, and were not permitted 
to enter the school-room. On account of this interview she 
made a complaint to the Committee that I had insulted her 
by using abusive language, and by a threatening manner. 
Dr. Stebbins reported to Mr. E. N. Blake, committee on the 
school-house, and he sent the police on the next morning to 
arrest me in case I went to the school-house agajn on that 
day. 

In conclusion let me say, that I have stated what I am 
-willing to meet at any time and place, and shall demand of 
the voters of Woburn, at the next April meeting, that they 
place such men upon the Board of School Committee as will 
give me the rights that I am entitled to as a citizen of Wo- 
burn. 



W. T. SPILLER. 



WoBFRN, March 10 th, 1864. 



>imm 1^1 I.J ' 

LIBRARY 



12 



Extracts from the Report of the School Committee 
of Winchester, for the School-year 1854-5. 

Attention is respectfully called to tlie following extracts, 
taken from the Report of the School Committee of Win- 
chester, for the school-year 1854-5, at which time John A. 
Bolles, Charles Kimball, Charles P. Curtis, jr., William In- 
galls, aud Stephen A. Holt, comprised the Committee : — 

"Early in the year complaint was made to us that several 
children had been suspended by Miss Porter, their teacher, 
from the Washington School, for refusing to read the com- 
monly received Protestant, or King James's, version of the 
Bible in their classes in school. These pupils were the chil- 
dren of Roman Catholic parents. Their refusal was based 
on a religous scruple. Their conduct in all other respects 
was good. They were legally entitled to instruction in the 
public schools. These parents were anxious to have their 
children taught in those schools, and had, as they made known 
to us, no objection to their children's hearing the common ver- 
sion of the Bible read, or to their children's attendance on 
prayer by the teacher; aud they requested the Committee to 
take such action in the "case as might seem to be lawful and 
proper." * ^ -* * * 

" We were unanimous in our opinion and belief that, under 
the constitution and laws of Massachusetts, no public school 
teacher or school Committee could rightfully compel a Prot- 
estant pupil to read or study the Roman Catholic version of 
the Holy Scriptures, and that no public school teacher or 
Committee could rightfully compel a Roman Catholic pupil to 
read or study the Protestant version of the same sacred vol- 
ume. The law provides (Revised Statutes, chapter 23, sec- 
tion 17) that "the school Committee of each town shall di- 
rect what books shall be used in the several schools kept by 



13 

the town, and may direct what books shall be used in the re- 
spective classes." But this grant of power is qualified and 
controlled by the familiar principles of the constitution. 
The equality of all citizens, and of all denominations or sects, 
in religion, and the sanctity of conscience, whether in school 
or out, of school, are not to be violated or invaded. What 
we would consider illegal, unjust, unconstitutional, if done or 
attempted by a Roman Catholic Committee or teacher, we 
could neither sanction nor tolerate as constitutional, just, or 
lawful, when done or attempted by a Protestant teacher or 
Committee. Our constitution and laws know no difference 
between citizens of different creeds or sects. The fact that 
Roman Catholics are the majority or the minority does not 
affect their rights. 

Our schools, not less than our courts, our legislature, our 
roads and our bridges, are part and parcel of the State, sus- 
tained by the people at large without distinction of name or 
faith. They are alike open to all, and open to all alike, and 
all are alike bound to aid in their support. 

Not only is every child entitled to be taught in those 
schools, but the law requires that, unless elsewhere proper- 
ly educated, he shall be so taught. It is by the constitution 
and laws enjoined upon all in authority to promote a uni- 
versal attendance on those schools. Habitual absence or 
tyranny is a statute offence, for which both parent and child 
are punishable."^ Any child unlawfully excluded from pub- 
lic school instructions may recover damages therefor in an 
action against the town.f 

The major part of *he people of Massachusetts, like our- 
selves, are protcstants. But that will not justify them or us 
in infringing one whit upon the religious rights of any class 
of our fellow-citizens, whether Roman Catholic or Greek Cath- 
olic, Episcopal Catholic, or catholic in the true and proper 
signification of that much-abused and perverted term.| Any 
individual is a bigot or a tyrant who will impose upon anoth- 

♦Constitution, part 2, chapter 5, section 2. Acts of 1850, chapter 294, and 
of 1852, chapters 240 and 283. 

tAits ot 1845, chapter 214. 

J" The Apostles' Creed" of '• the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Uni- 
ted States of America"' contains among its formulas the declaration, " I believe 
in one holy catholic church," or "one catholic and apostolic church," 
*• Catholic — universal or general," So saya Webster's IXictionary, the author- 
itati ve text book in all our schools. 



14 

er man's conscience any doctrine, decree, policy, or measure 
to which he would not himself patiently submit or conform. 
And if this be true of an individual, it is more emphatically 
true of a community. The error or the wrong of orae may be 
more readily borne or forgiven than the fault or folly of a 
multitude. 

One member of this Committee is a Baptist. Suppose he 
should insist that the Baptist version of the Bible published 
in New York, and in which the Greek word for baptise is 
translated into the English word immerse, should be read in 
our public schools ; would he not be justly denounced as a 
bigot ? And if the majority of his associates were of the 
same sect, and should join in the same folly, so that every 
scholar in every public school in Winchester should be com- 
pelled, on pain of expulsion, to read, as a daily school ex- 
ercise, this Baptist Bible, would not the people of the town 
perceive the unconstitutionality and illegality, and feel the 
injustice, and ridicule the folly, of that procedure ? 

Moved by considerations like these, we determined that, so 
far as depended on us, no scholar should, contrary to his own 
conscientious scruples, or to those of his parent or guardian, 
be compelled to read the Bible in any version, whether Douay, 
King James, or New York Baptist ; nor be hereafter exclud- 
ed from school for his refusal so to read. 

At the same time we were not disposed to censure, nor 
did we censure. Miss Porter, the teacher of the Washington 
School, for having enforced obedience even by an act of sus- 
pension ; but the suspended scholars were restored, and the 
rule established by our vote of the 20th of April was made 
publicly known." * -^ * * * 

" Our decision was unquestionably a decision that we, as 
a Committee, had a perfect right to make ; nor have we ever 
doubted that our decision, and the rule thereby established, 
are correct. 

Those who believe that any scholar in our public schools 
can rightfully be compelled, contrary to his own religiouB 
scruples or to those of his parent or guardian, to read any 
particular version of the Bible, are ignorant of the true char- 
acter of those schools and of their relation to the State." 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS # 



020 975 7758 



"^p- 

1%.-'^*--: 



-•«•■! >* 













2 fct**" '•JT 


1^^^ r^^. 










